the pervasive poverty of risk-prone households and communities. Given these different starting points, it is unsurprising that those countries that reported little progress did so from very different perspectives. Some national reports (from Albania and Senegal, for example) reveal a focus on preparedness and emergency management and higher progress in HFA Priority Area 5 (strengthening disaster preparedness) than in other areas. Others, such as Peru, show a sophisticated understanding of the complexities of addressing underlying vulnerabilities and
Figure 4.12 Countries reporting substantial progress in assessing disaster risk impacts of infrastructure
Percentage of countries reporting progress level 4–5 70% 60% 50%
40% 30% 20% 10%
Highincome
2007–2009
Figure 4.13 Countries reporting on means to assess disaster risk in development investments
UpperLowermiddle middle Income group
Lowincome
2009–2011
drivers of risk together with a low progress score. Namibia reported that investment into DRM, rather than response and preparedness, is difficult to plan and account for. Greater understanding appears to bring greater awareness of the magnitude of the task.
4.6.1 Investment planning Only 38 percent of all countries and territories, relatively equally spread across income classes and regions, systematically incorporated risk reduction into national- and sector-level public investment systems. However, it is unclear if more than a few of these are fully functioning and institutionalized systems. For example, Viet Nam reported that decisions on public investment are based on relatively limited information on hazards, climate change and underlying vulnerabilities. As Figure 4.12 shows, countries reported less progress towards estimating the potential impacts on future disaster risk of large infrastructure projects – such as dams, highways and tourism developments – than they did in the previous reporting period. Less than 10 percent of lower-middle-income countries awarded themselves a score of 4 or 5. Again, this limited progress may reflect increased understanding of the complexities involved in conducting systematic assessments. New supporting data for the current reporting period show that countries employ different types of mechanisms to assess disaster risk. As Figure 4.13 shows, while most OECD and other high-income countries directly assessed risks in critical infrastructure projects, low- and middle-income countries seem to rely more on pre-existing environmental impact assessments to fulfil this function.
Percentage of countries 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%
4.6.2 Urban and land use planning
40% 30% 20% 10% Highincome
Uppermiddle
Lowermiddle
Lowincome
Income group Assessing impact of large infrastructure projects on disaster risk
86
Taking accountof disaster risk in environmental impact assessments (EIAs)
In the present reporting cycle, lower-middleincome countries reported significant progress in the area of urban development and land use planning compared with 2009. However, there remains a staggering discrepancy between high- and low-income nations, with almost 70 percent of high-income countries and only
2011 Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction Revealing Risk, Redefining Development